Before discussing the origin of information, we first need to clarify what kind of information we are talking about. Information can be defined in multiple ways. While Shannon information denotes merely information-carrying capacity (which increases the more characters are possible at a site and the longer the sequence of characters), it cannot distinguish whether a string of characters is meaningful or having a specific function. Here, we are concerned with information that has a specific function.

So, what is the origin of functionally-specified information? That is, what is the origin of information that conveys a message? Is it derived from random processes or a mind?

Imagine you find the word “HELLO” written in the sand at the beach. You wouldn’t think the waves wrote it because we know from experience that messages come from people, not waves. ​How do we know this? Because the message “HELLO” is specific and complex.

What do I mean by “specific and complex” information?

For example, imagine you have a box of alphabet letters (e.g., Scrabble^® tiles). If you randomly select seven letter tiles, they might form a character string like “ASDKJFH”. This is just random and doesn’t mean anything.  This is what we call “complex” because it’s not simple (repeating patterns like “AAAAAAAA” or “ABABABAB”), but it’s not “specific” because it doesn’t have a clear meaning or purpose.

Now, imagine you carefully arrange the letters to spell “HELLO”. This is both complex and specific. ​ It’s complex because it uses a specific arrangement of letters, and it’s specific because it has a clear meaning and purpose. It’s a word that we understand. ​

This is similar to how scientists look at DNA. DNA is like a long string of letters that are arranged in a very specific order to create instructions for building and running living things. DNA has a very specific and complex code, like a message, that tells cells how to build proteins. ​In other words, the specific, complex information in DNA tells cells how to make the tiny machines that do all the important jobs in our bodies. ​

So, when we talk about specific, complex information, we mean a detailed and organized set of instructions that has a clear purpose, just like the word “HELLO” has a clear meaning. Scientists argue that such specific, complex information in DNA is best explained by the action of an intelligent mind, just like a meaningful message in the sand is best explained by someone writing it.

Abductive Reasoning…

There are two types of reasoning most people are familiar with: Inductive and Deductive Reasoning. Inductive reasoning is like making a guess based on what you have seen before; for example, if every swan you have seen is white, inductive reasoning suggests that all swans are white. On the other hand, deductive reasoning is like following a general law to reach a specific conclusion; for example, if you learn the general rule that all dogs are mammals, deductive reasoning indicates that your pet dog is also a mammal. These two types of reasoning are used by scientists. Inductive reasoning is used to form hypotheses based on observations, while deductive reasoning is used to test hypotheses.

However, when it comes to historical events, unless we can time-travel, we cannot make direct observations of how past events happened (even if we could, we should not experiment by changing something in the event to test a hypothesis–such an action could dramatically alter temporal timelines affecting our own future existence). To study what happened in the past from a scientific perspective, we need to be like detectives of a crime scene, examine the evidence an event has left behind, and, using our knowledge of what causes produce what effects presently, try to figure out the most probable explanation of what happened. This type of reasoning is called abductive reasoning. Like detectives, historical scientists gather clues from the natural/archaeological data, consider multiple hypotheses, narrow down the options by considering known causes of similar effects observed today, and then propose the most likely causal explanation. While abductive reasoning cannot provide 100% certainty, as it is limited by the investigator’s knowledge of causes and effects, it provides a scientifically valid way to “test” hypotheses of what caused some effect, or the origin of something.

Whenever we see something that has a detailed and organized set of instructions, like a book, a computer program, or a message in a bottle, we know it was created by someone with a mind.  We have never seen random processes, like the wind or waves, create something with specific, complex information.  In the same way, we observe that DNA contains very detailed and organized instructions for building and running living things. This specific, complex information in DNA is similar to the instructions in a book or a computer program.

Just like we know people write messages in the sand, we know that intelligence (a mind) can create specific, complex codes; however, in our experience, other causes that can sufficiently explain a meaningful message in the sand or DNA are lacking. ​Even if it was an artificial intelligence, this only kicks the can down the road so-to-speak, as AI did not just spontaneously generate itself (the same could be said of aliens); rather, AI was the product of many years of purposeful research and engineering by already existing human minds. The argument for intelligent design is strengthened by the fact that, based on our experience, the only known cause for creating specific, complex information is a mind or intelligence. ​This is a scientifically valid argument.

In conclusion, using abductive reasoning, since we know from experience that such detailed instructions always come from a mind, the most probable explanation, and arguably the only explanation, is that the information in DNA also came from an intelligent source. It is then simply a step of faith to assign the intelligent designer of DNA as the omnipotent, omniscient, Creator God of the Bible.

Reference

Meyer, S. C. (2008). A scientific history and philosophical defense of the theory of intelligent design. Discovery Institute, 7, 1–33.